Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134219 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3315 of 2024 Revisionist :- Avinash Chandra Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Beenu Singh,Radhey Shyam Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Case was taken up as mentioned case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has given notice to the learned counsel for the opposite party in writing who received the notice and made endorsement. Notice is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by learned court Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat, in Case No. 184 of 2021 (Smt. Radha Devi and another Vs. Avinash Chandra Pal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the revisionist is directed to ensure payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 (Km. Abhi Devi). The said amount will be paid from the date of application submitted by opposite party no. 2 and 3 for receiving maintenance. The amount of interim maintenance given to the opposite party no. 2 and 3 by the revisionist department will be adjusted in this amount, in the subsequent months, the revisionist should pay the maintenance amount to the opposite party no. 2 and 3 regularly on every tenth of the month and the remaining amount should be provided to the opposite party no. 2 and 3 by the revisionist in three monthly installments and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 is minor daughter. The opposite party no. 2 is living separate from him without any sufficient cause with minor daughter and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the learned trial court by order dated 07.06.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter. It is further submitted that the revisionist is working in Army and gets salary Rs. 60,725/- and after deduction the net salary is Rs. 45,786/- per month. The learned trial court has fixed the amount disproportionately that is excessive. The learned court has not taken into consideration the individual responsibilities of the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the revisionist has made allegation against the wife about her affair with some other person but he failed to prove this fact before the learned court. The revisionist being husband and father of the child is under legal obligation to maintain them. On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 07.06.2024, it appears that the revisionist was married to the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2015 and in the year 2016 a female child (opposite party no. 3) born from the wedlock, thereafter, due to neglect on the part of the revisionist she started living separate from him with the minor daughter in her maika. The revisionist did not pay her any amount for maintenance of herself and minor daughter except amount being deducted as interim maintenance from his account. It also appears that he works in Army and gets gross salary is Rs. 60,775/- per month as per his account statement relating to the month of March, 2024. After deduction his net salary is Rs. 45,786/- per month. On the other hand, there is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no. 2 is making any income and is able to maintain herself and a minor daughter. The learned trial court fixed the amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter which cannot be said to be excessive and disproportionate. As per observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, the amount of maintenance to the wife may extend to 25% of net salary of the husband. In this way, there appears no any illegality in fixing the amount of maintenance in favor of wife and minor child. The learned trial court has also directed for adjustment of amount received by wife from his department as interim maintenance. It is made clear that any amount received by the wife/opposite party no. 2 as interim maintenance or as maintenance in the present case or in any other case shall also be subject to adjustment in the present amount as per observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 case. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Suraj Srivastav Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad